Mainstream Diet Myths Debunked
Options
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study's participants were far too few for those conclusions to be meaningful.
See here:
"I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How."
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Thank you.
It's hardly comparable. The chocolate 'study' had 16 subjects. The crash dieting study had 200.
But I thought it interesting how the chocolate story made the point that even well-funded, serious research into weight-loss science is confusing and inconclusive.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study's participants were far too few for those conclusions to be meaningful.
See here:
"I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How."
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Thank you.
It's hardly comparable. The chocolate 'study' had 16 subjects. The crash dieting study had 200.
But I thought it interesting how the chocolate story made the point that even well-funded, serious research into weight-loss science is confusing and inconclusive.
200 is very few, especially the even smaller percentage who lost weight then went on to the maintenance diet.
We need a meta-study of good quality studies of thousands of participants. I'm certainly open to new evidence.
Cheers.
0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »Here's a list of common diet myths that have been debunked by science.
NOTE, THESE ARE MYTHS!
- Saturated fat is bad
- A low-fat diet is better for health
- Salt is the devil
- Sugar is the dietary devil with its empty kilojoules
- Eggs are evil
- Multiple small meals beats three square meals
- Low fat dairy is better for health and weight loss
- Cooking with olive oil is bad
- Skipping breakfast is a terrible idea
- Fasting slows your metabolism and increases cortisol
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/top-10-mainstream-diet-myths-debunked-20150213-13e1bo.html
What other debunked myths are there? Add them to the list. Preferably with sources.
The saturated Fat one has not been debunked as a myth. Despite what people keep saying. Even though there have been a couple of studies questioning this. The wealth of evidence is still that too much saturated fat is linked to high cholesterol. There has been thousands of studies over the decades supporting the link so one or 2 studies saying the opposite does not immediately 'debunk' all that has come before. That is why people like major Health Bodies like the American Heart Association, the British hear Foundation and the NHS in the UK still advise that people keep a check on the SF intake. We all need fat in our diet and the 80's lo fat Mantra was over the top. It seems to me that people want support for there bad habits which is why people are joyfully jumping on the Saturated Fat is good for you Mantra,
So in reality I suppose something not being bad does not automatically mean it's good for you. People can make there own minds up but as the 'Chocolate is good for weightloss' study shows just believing what is in the popular press and the headlines is a dangerous game.
What's interesting is the study that people always quote as saying saturated fat is good doesn't actually say that. In the study the conclusions actually stated Their findings“did not yield clearly supportive evidence for current cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.”
That does not say saturated fats are good for you. Basically the waters are a bit muddy but they most defiantly have not been debunked.
Personally if major health organisations and cardiologists are still saying that keeping an eye on saturated fat intake I think I'll stick with that.
In reality rather than putting labels like good and bad it's far better to just aim for balance. I so despair at this faddy leaping from one extreme to another.0 -
Agreed.0
-
The article was saying saturated fats are OK in moderation. On this we all agree. Cheers.0
-
But a banana a day will still make me fat, right? I was told it has some kinda indigestable carbs in it. That they just meld into your body and are released for energy after protein, fat, sugar, and other carbs have already been used up.
0 -
"Apple cider vinegar / lemon juice / etc in water balance your body's pH."
That is just one of the many lies the likes of Food Babe and Dr Oz tell.
If anything altered your pH, it would kill you.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study's participants were far too few for those conclusions to be meaningful.
See here:
"I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How."
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Thank you.
It's hardly comparable. The chocolate 'study' had 16 subjects. The crash dieting study had 200.
But I thought it interesting how the chocolate story made the point that even well-funded, serious research into weight-loss science is confusing and inconclusive.
200 is very few, especially the even smaller percentage who lost weight then went on to the maintenance diet.
We need a meta-study of good quality studies of thousands of participants. I'm certainly open to new evidence.
Cheers.
Noooooo. Bad science.
I've been watching this little side discussion.
1) even if Chrysalid might have used a poor source it doesn't discount her argument.
2) n=200 is not very few. It depends on what you are trying to prove and study design.
3) meta studies and thousand participant studies are NOT good science. Meta studies can be some of the worst evaluation and really require much review. Huge participant observational studies are useless without smaller interventional, crossover studies. It's not about the the number of participants alone.
Finally, Chrysalid is right. There is a place for rapid weight loss, however often the benefits outweigh the risks. Rapid weight loss shouldn't be recommended without specific caviats and most likely medical follow-up of some kind.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Which method increases the likelihood of gallstones, adrenal fatigue, hormonal issues, depression, eating disorders ?
As Steve notes: Lbm retention? Osteoporosis risk? Hair loss? Nutrient deficiencies?0 -
If phase 1 only takes a third of the time for that group, that would be expected.
I'd be more reserved in calling it "better" than the slower weight loss if I'm not taking into account things like LBM retention during the loss though.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
12 weeks sounds way better than 52 weeks. Not sure why you use this as an argument?0 -
I'm talking about Cochrane reviews.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
[Edit: this is the study referenced in the article above:]
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study's participants were far too few for those conclusions to be meaningful.
See here:
"I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How."
http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
Thank you.
It's hardly comparable. The chocolate 'study' had 16 subjects. The crash dieting study had 200.
But I thought it interesting how the chocolate story made the point that even well-funded, serious research into weight-loss science is confusing and inconclusive.
200 is very few, especially the even smaller percentage who lost weight then went on to the maintenance diet.
We need a meta-study of good quality studies of thousands of participants. I'm certainly open to new evidence.
Cheers.
Noooooo. Bad science.
I've been watching this little side discussion.
1) even if Chrysalid might have used a poor source it doesn't discount her argument.
2) n=200 is not very few. It depends on what you are trying to prove and study design.
3) meta studies and thousand participant studies are NOT good science. Meta studies can be some of the worst evaluation and really require much review. Huge participant observational studies are useless without smaller interventional, crossover studies. It's not about the the number of participants alone.
Finally, Chrysalid is right. There is a place for rapid weight loss, however often the benefits outweigh the risks. Rapid weight loss shouldn't be recommended without specific caviats and most likely medical follow-up of some kind.
But I agree with your last sentence.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Myth: crash dieting is not effective and 'slow and steady' is the only sensible approach for weight loss.
Debunkment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11164914/Crash-dieting-more-effective-than-gradual-weight-loss-study-suggests.html
Chrys, your source is not reliable because it's just a biased newspaper article without any linked studies.
My apologies. Here is the link to the study and I will add it to my original post. I thought the newspaper article was more interesting as it included comments from other experts on the study.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract
The study says it's not worse (for maintenance, no other assertions are made) and the article made "It's more effective" out of that...
The study was designed to look at maintenance, but as a 'side effect' they discovered that the people on the rapid weight loss diet were more successful at losing the weight in the first place (31% more successful).
After phase 1, 51 (50%) participants in the gradual weight loss group and 76 (81%) in the rapid weight loss group achieved 12·5% or more weight loss in the allocated time and started phase 2.
(Phase 1 being the weight loss phase of the study and Phase 2 being the maintenance phase).
Yeah but phase 1 was only 36 weeks for the slow losers (12 weeks for rapid losers).
(It took me 52 weeks to lose 50 lbs [slowly and utterly painlessly])
12 weeks sounds way better than 52 weeks. Not sure why you use this as an argument?
I suffered not at all during my loss. I ate just a shade under maintenance, felt fuelled and energized for the increase in activity that improved my overall quality of life on multiple levels, didn't feel deprived at all. I dunno if those things are accounted for in the study mentioned?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions